The Sound of Settled Science

[skookerasbil]

So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?

Nobody would say that....but using computer models as a guide to determine climate change policy is a waste of time ( and rejected by government policy-makers btw ).

Only the small contingent of alarmists would advocate for spending huge amounts of $$ ( see Solyndra 2010 ) based upon the dartboard accuracy of computer models.

In the real world, we can't ( and won't) be doing that!

 

[westwall]

So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?

No, I believe they should actually invest in something that ain't simple. I believe that they should actually do some SCIENCE and come up with a computer model that gives results that are not pre programmed as ALL of them currently are.

 

[task0778]

So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?

Nobody would say that....but using computer models as a guide to determine climate change policy is a waste of time ( and rejected by government policy-makers btw ).

Only the small contingent of alarmists would advocate for spending huge amounts of $$ ( see Solyndra 2010 ) based upon the dartboard accuracy of computer models.

In the real world, we can't ( and won't) be doing that!

Didn't Obama sign us up for the Paris Agreement? Seeing as how the Democratic Party continues to move further Left, if they ever regain control of Congress and the WH it wouldn't surprise me if they authorize huge amounts of our tax dollars on GW/CC.

 

[skookerasbil]

So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?

Nobody would say that....but using computer models as a guide to determine climate change policy is a waste of time ( and rejected by government policy-makers btw ).

Only the small contingent of alarmists would advocate for spending huge amounts of $$ ( see Solyndra 2010 ) based upon the dartboard accuracy of computer models.

In the real world, we can't ( and won't) be doing that!

Didn't Obama sign us up for the Paris Agreement? Seeing as how the Democratic Party continues to move further Left, if they ever regain control of Congress and the WH it wouldn't surprise me if they authorize huge amounts of our tax dollars on GW/CC.

Well they had all the opportunity in the world in 2009 and 2010 and didn't do dick. If you're going to tax people up the ying-yang you have to do it where the votes are going to count. Since most people don't care about climate change, it has become a radioactive topic on Capitol Hill for the last 10 years. It's never going to happen at a federal level but we will see more states ramping up green initiatives.... which of course like California will eventually make them third world states. Individuals and business will move away from those States in a blink of an eye.!!

 

[Weatherman2020]

So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?

Only if I get to write the software.

You’ll argue only someone you certify should be able to write it.

Thus the crux of the issue. Software models can be easily manipulated, especially when only 1% of the topical variables are known, as with the case with the climate.

 

[skookerasbil]

So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?

Only if I get to write the software.

You’ll argue only someone you certify should be able to write it.

Thus the crux of the issue. Software models can be easily manipulated, especially when only 1% of the topical variables are known, as with the case with the climate.

You could be right 100% of the time for the next hundred years but guys like Crick and Old Rocks bought in hook, line and sTinker long ago. It's that whole religion thing.

 

[jc456]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

I'm a wiz at statistics. You can get up to be down and in to be out with such ease.

Global warming Mythers know the tricks too.

Your a whiz at nonsense. LOL The science is settled that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHGs. That was settled in 1859 by John Tyndall. Svante Arrhenius did the calculations for the doubling of CO2 in 1896, and the figure he arrived at was pretty accurate. You are a know nothing with delusions of intelligence.

But no proof whatsoever it is the cause of any warming. None. It's a theory.

Too, it is exceedingly clear that all around the world, the people who make climate change policy concur: the alarmists, after 20 years by the way, have yet to make the case. Any climate change policies by Western governments have been symbolic only. The warmists get all giddy about that ( as all progressives do getting euphoric over banners and symbols ) but most people don't care. The Paris Treaty being as dead as a doornail is just a small example of the profound failure of the climate science industry not being able to make even a close to convincing case.

I'm not sure you understand the scientific meaning of the word theory.

or perhaps it is you that doesn't understand what it is.

 

[jc456]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

As in any mathematical endeavor, the order in which you do the operations is the difference between right and wrong... In life it is the difference between life and death. Since we still have little understanding as to what the proper order of operations is in our climate, making the assumption you know the proper order is fantasy. Empirical review of your models shows they are 100% failures, without exception. Thus your order of operations is wrong!

Billy, given your extensive experience, I was wondering if you could give us a quick overview on the technique of working from abject ignorance with willful lies? Have you found that to be a productive and beneficial technique or does the corporal punishment your poor, embarrassed mother inflicts on you daily build on whatever it is tht serves you as a conscience?

One word, observed

Dumb ****. Observed melting of the cryosphere. Observed warming of the atmosphere. Observed warming of the oceans. Observed sea level rise. Observed decrease in the pH of the oceans. Observed absorption spectra of the GHGs. Now tell me what your observations are that says that any of this is incorrect.

wasn't Chicago under ice once or twice or thrice? I live here so I know today it isn't. see you don't have the ability to rationalize the global affects from temperatures. you think the globe is supposed to be some temperature. I don't. I look at what I observe and live my life in that environment. You wish to control how I live because you have some nutty belief of the globe temperature. funny, you think you can control it.

 

[jc456]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

As in any mathematical endeavor, the order in which you do the operations is the difference between right and wrong... In life it is the difference between life and death. Since we still have little understanding as to what the proper order of operations is in our climate, making the assumption you know the proper order is fantasy. Empirical review of your models shows they are 100% failures, without exception. Thus your order of operations is wrong!

Billy, given your extensive experience, I was wondering if you could give us a quick overview on the technique of working from abject ignorance with willful lies? Have you found that to be a productive and beneficial technique or does the corporal punishment your poor, embarrassed mother inflicts on you daily build on whatever it is tht serves you as a conscience?

One word, observed

Dumb ****. Observed melting of the cryosphere. Observed warming of the atmosphere. Observed warming of the oceans. Observed sea level rise. Observed decrease in the pH of the oceans. Observed absorption spectra of the GHGs. Now tell me what your observations are that says that any of this is incorrect.

And yet you have not ascertained what portion of any of this is caused directly by man and which can not be explained by natural variation... You use made up models that are incapable of showing this as every one FAILS empirical review... Yet you 'believe'.....

Hell, you cant even define the range of natural variation, which everything we have seen the last 300 years falls well within....

Billy, he thinks we can control the temperature.

 

[jc456]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

I'm a wiz at statistics. You can get up to be down and in to be out with such ease.

Global warming Mythers know the tricks too.

Your a whiz at nonsense. LOL The science is settled that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHGs. That was settled in 1859 by John Tyndall. Svante Arrhenius did the calculations for the doubling of CO2 in 1896, and the figure he arrived at was pretty accurate. You are a know nothing with delusions of intelligence.

Every paper you cite failed empirical review.... now that's funny as hell.. When your modeling fails, when tested against observations, you have no proof of anything except failure and evidence that they do not understand the system they are modeling.... yet you want to kill your economy and enslave every one for your belief's.... Sad really.. so easily duped!

Lol......

Billy.....these climate crusaders can't go a single day without trying to pull some kind of fakery.

I cant wait for the usual appeal to authority and "peer review"...

Doesn't matter that they do not understand the system and fail at modeling it...Its peer reviewed... so its gospel... duped retards... It speaks volumes about their peers credibility and ethical conduct as well...

it isn't possible to model something one can't control.

 

[Crepitus]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

I'm a wiz at statistics. You can get up to be down and in to be out with such ease.

Global warming Mythers know the tricks too.

Your a whiz at nonsense. LOL The science is settled that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHGs. That was settled in 1859 by John Tyndall. Svante Arrhenius did the calculations for the doubling of CO2 in 1896, and the figure he arrived at was pretty accurate. You are a know nothing with delusions of intelligence.

But no proof whatsoever it is the cause of any warming. None. It's a theory.

Too, it is exceedingly clear that all around the world, the people who make climate change policy concur: the alarmists, after 20 years by the way, have yet to make the case. Any climate change policies by Western governments have been symbolic only. The warmists get all giddy about that ( as all progressives do getting euphoric over banners and symbols ) but most people don't care. The Paris Treaty being as dead as a doornail is just a small example of the profound failure of the climate science industry not being able to make even a close to convincing case.

I'm not sure you understand the scientific meaning of the word theory.

or perhaps it is you that doesn't understand what it is.

No, I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.

 

[task0778]

1. Science isn't settled about much of anything. We think we know the answers and then we find out new stuff and have to re-examine what we thought was true.

2. GW/CC is more about politics than it is about science, there's way too much about it scientifically that we don't know yet to be making any guarantees about this or that happening by the end of the century. It's about spending gobs of our tax dollars that could be better used in other ways.

3. The Paris Accords were about wealth redistribution, disguised as GW/CC.

 

[jc456]

I'm a wiz at statistics. You can get up to be down and in to be out with such ease.

Global warming Mythers know the tricks too.

Your a whiz at nonsense. LOL The science is settled that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHGs. That was settled in 1859 by John Tyndall. Svante Arrhenius did the calculations for the doubling of CO2 in 1896, and the figure he arrived at was pretty accurate. You are a know nothing with delusions of intelligence.

But no proof whatsoever it is the cause of any warming. None. It's a theory.

Too, it is exceedingly clear that all around the world, the people who make climate change policy concur: the alarmists, after 20 years by the way, have yet to make the case. Any climate change policies by Western governments have been symbolic only. The warmists get all giddy about that ( as all progressives do getting euphoric over banners and symbols ) but most people don't care. The Paris Treaty being as dead as a doornail is just a small example of the profound failure of the climate science industry not being able to make even a close to convincing case.

I'm not sure you understand the scientific meaning of the word theory.

or perhaps it is you that doesn't understand what it is.

No, I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.

or not.

 

[Sunsettommy]

So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?

Nobody would say that....but using computer models as a guide to determine climate change policy is a waste of time ( and rejected by government policy-makers btw ).

Only the small contingent of alarmists would advocate for spending huge amounts of $$ ( see Solyndra 2010 ) based upon the dartboard accuracy of computer models.

In the real world, we can't ( and won't) be doing that!

Didn't Obama sign us up for the Paris Agreement? Seeing as how the Democratic Party continues to move further Left, if they ever regain control of Congress and the WH it wouldn't surprise me if they authorize huge amounts of our tax dollars on GW/CC.

He signed up for it, but had no legal force since it was NEVER ratified in the Senate. Trump formally pulled it out to make clear America will not be part of a wealth transfer scheme.

 

[Old Rocks]

And after 2020, the Democratic President can put us right back into it. And from his 'office' in Leavenworth, the orange clown will not be able to do a thing about it. And Pence can go back to building an alter to Mammon.

 

[skookerasbil]

1. Science isn't settled about much of anything. We think we know the answers and then we find out new stuff and have to re-examine what we thought was true.

2. GW/CC is more about politics than it is about science, there's way too much about it scientifically that we don't know yet to be making any guarantees about this or that happening by the end of the century. It's about spending gobs of our tax dollars that could be better used in other ways.

3. The Paris Accords were about wealth redistribution, disguised as GW/CC.

 

[skookerasbil]

And after 2020, the Democratic President can put us right back into it. And from his 'office' in Leavenworth, the orange clown will not be able to do a thing about it. And Pence can go back to building an alter to Mammon.

PoliticalanalysisFaiL.

Executive orders don't mean shit. Only Congress can appropriate money. Duh. The GOP and the DUMS have shown zero inclination to divert dollars from things that really concerne people to the fight on climate change. Not even debatable. Dollars go where votes follow.....again....duh.

Only the climate alarmist would think a constituent would be okay with hearing, "Sorry asshole....no more transportation $$ for you to get to your dialysis treatments.... we have a war to wage on climate change"!

 

[Sunsettommy]

And after 2020, the Democratic President can put us right back into it. And from his 'office' in Leavenworth, the orange clown will not be able to do a thing about it. And Pence can go back to building an alter to Mammon.

Meanwhile Europe, is failing to meet those Paris accords they like so darn much...………………..

Snicker...……………………...

 

[Crick]

The only debate here is whether or not the world needs to reduce GHG emissions or perhaps whether or not America's well-being is better served by unfettered capitalism than by saving the ******* planet.. If you think Trump has a superior understanding of the science than do the world's scientists or that they are all lying thieves, then stand up proud for your man. Don't be weaseling around with all these sideshow arguments.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The only debate here is whether or not the world needs to reduce GHG emissions or perhaps whether or not America's well-being is better served by unfettered capitalism than by saving the ******* planet.. If you think Trump has a superior understanding of the science than do the world's scientists or that they are all lying thieves, then stand up proud for your man. Don't be weaseling around with all these sideshow arguments.

You are a joke, since America actually reduced CO2 emissions in recent years while asshole snobs of socialists Europe didn't, they were flat to increased emissions. Asia increased their emissions significantly.